Seriously?
Are you ****ing kidding me?
You've some neck.

badaj0z wrote: »

Then it needs to be resolved doesn’it? Or would you rather do nothing?

This level of misunderstanding is well over the border into the land of taking the absolute mickey.

This is an NASRPC-caused problem. The NASRPC explicitly know this as it was explained, publicly and at length and with supporting documentation. I still have the audio recording of the meeting around here somewhere.

There is a government-defined way to resolve this problem. That resolution has to be brought about by the FISA, as the SSAI's replacement. The FISA are now and have been for some years run by the NASRPC, but I use the word "run" very very loosely because despite years of effectively saying "we can do this better", the DoJ has never heard from FISA since the NASRPC took it over, or at least they hadn't the last time I spoke to them about it.

There is no gray area to dodge this one. It's an accountancy issue. The DoAST want our accounts balanced. The NASRPC are the only ones who are currently empowered by our own structures to do that. They have been for several years now.

For you to come on here and say "hey, should we set up a new body to sort this out" is beyond being a silly mistake, especially for someone who only in the last week picked a fight over whether or not he was allowed to speak on the NASRPC's behalf.

That is a totally illogical statement. Different committee, different people, different attitudes, different actions!

I strongly urge you to consider selling off the concessions stand rights to third-party vendors when you try to sell that one to the professional civil servants in the DoAST.
You'll make a killing on the popcorn alone.

FISA. The replacement body does not seem to have functioned and I can find no evidence of meetings or actions. The only 3 officers appointed to the committee were from the NASRPC, ITS and the PC. So it was not in the hands of the NASRPC(old committee) but of 3 bodies.

Could you hold off on criticising the answer when you don't understand it?
FISA did not have three officers.
FISA's entire board circulated between four bodies on a rotating basis - the three you've named and the NRAI. The NRAI got the first shift; the NASRPC was next up and then the entire thing stalled out from lack of workers before being handed on.

Let us have a closer look at your answer Sparks:

Oh, please, lets.

The SSAI which was the renamed NRPAI, had been up and running succesfully applying for and distributing grant monies to the organisations that were part of it. e.g. the NASRC, NTSA,NSAI etc. What happened to change this?

We've just covered this. Literally, it's right up there at the top of the thread.

The usual thing, which you deny the existence of, people change.

No.
That wasn't it.
Recall, the problem with funding arose while the SSAI was extant and before the decision to change it was taken. The people responsible were still around. Many of them (see your current board list) still are.
The problem was accountancy. Not officeholders changing.

Sometimes, without good leadership, a committee and hence the organisation can lose it's way. This is what happened with the last SSAI committee and the overlap of representation from the NASRPC.

Nope, sorry, that isn't what happened, and checking the rosters for who was an officer when point that out in black and white.

Have you noticed yet that when I say "that's wrong", I can point to documented evidence and when you say it, everyone can point to documented evidence refuting you?

Does this not drop a hint for you?

Quoting from the article you wrote and linked to above:

Not that I want to make a row over it, but this is an interesting side point - what you just did was technically to take something someone else owned copyright on and republish it illegally. This is why you don't see Irish Shooters Digest copy or Irish Times clippings in here these days.
I'm not saying to take it down - I don't mind myself - but it's a bit illustrative that you aren't quite sure what you're doing here.


Anyways...

“This prompted much noise and heat (if very little light) from the members of the audience, whose National Governing Body, the NASRPC – as an affiliated member of the SSAI – derived much of its annual funding from the Irish Sports Council grant. The mechanism for this was simple in nature – each affiliated member of the SSAI prepared a grant application and forwarded this to the SSAI committee, who collated these applications into a single composite document and forwarded it to the Irish Sports Council for consideration. With the Irish Sports Council grant on hold therefore, the NASRPC could not obtain monies through this route. It was spelled out in no uncertain terms that while this was unfortunate and a resolution was being sought with vigour, the problem had been caused during the tenure of the previous SSAI committee, who were now the loudest complainants from the NASRPC and who indeed held committee posts within the NASRPC. The SSAI undertook to continue to work on the problem, and the matter appeared to rest at that point."

In simple terms you state the that people who caused the problem with the Grant Administration whilst being on the SSAI committee, then moved to the NASRPC committee and complained about it.

So that's not how those bodies worked.
People on the SSAI committee were by default people on committees of other NGBs. Those NGBs selected members of their own committees to serve on the SSAI. So for example, if I recall correctly, the treasurer of the SSAI at the time of this meeting (seated to the left of the chair on the day) was a current-and-then NASRPC board member.

Aside from that, you're close to correct.

The last SSAI committee was dominated by people who voted it out of existence. I really do not understand why . The replacement body never functioned at all, let alone well, and that resulted in the farce you described above .

So your history timeline is entirely wrong.
The sequence was that the funding problem happened long before the SSAI was wound up; and FISA which replaced it functioned for the first six-month shift and then the NASRPC took over and it then just lapsed. Nothing got done. Nothing, as far as I am aware, was ever done. It's still sitting there, gathering cobwebs.

That is a really inane statement Sparks.

No, it's not inane, because that's not what inane means. Inane means "lacking sense or meaning".
The word you're looking for is "irate". "Angry" would do. "Pissed off that people threw away decades of people's work because they were incompetent and ego-driven" would work too, but it's not one word.
One body screwed up funding for an entire sport, and never put their hands up to it or even had the decency to apologise for the problem, let alone solve it though that was in their power for several years now.
And to come on here after you've been fighting their corner and acting as if this was a new problem you'd personally discovered afresh instead of being one of the most scandalous things that ever happened in our sport and which is bloody-well understood by everyone in our sports administration and the department, is right up there with the russian social media squad in terms of how blatant and unacceptable it is.

This mess is the NASRPC's fault and they have the authority through FISA to sort it out with the DoAST.

Perhaps you can tell us why, years after the problem was explained in public, this hasn't happened and our sport has missed out on what would amount to over a hundred thousand of euros in funding?

Might be worth pointing out that the ICPSA lost their core funding for about 5 years at one stage. Through a lot of hard work and cooperation with the ISC, they got it back. It can be done. But you have to work at it.

badaj0z wrote: »

Exhibit 1 from the FISA constitution:

You're omitting the point that all the officers come from *one* body at a time.
You're also not relaying the point that this was the *entire* point of FISA - to get away from contested elections and the associated politics and say "you want to do the job? Here you go."

And the last six years have shown what happens when you do that to people who want the row and not the job.

Never said anything of the kind Sparks.

Really? You know we can read, right?

where are the grants for the target rifle and pistol shooters? We used to get such grants up until the time that the Shooting Sports Association was closed down by two of the organisations that were part of it. Since this time no grants have been given, primarily because there was no recognised governing body to apply for or get them. Should this change?

The roots of this whole issue

Sorry, you're going to tell me about roots?
You know I was there, right?

certain of the NGB’s did not like the fact that there was a national level body above them

True, but I think you'll find you have the wrong one in mind.

They liked getting financial support but did not like the way it came.

Literally cracking up at that one.
You really should have been there, you'd be getting a hoot out of this as well if you had.

You were one of the first people to
try to change this with your first failed attempt to get the NTSA to resign from the SSAI.

My "first failed attempt" wasn't to leave the SSAI, it was to leave the NRPAI.
And I wasn't on the committee when they left the SSAI.

The advent of the IPSA finally gave you the excuse you were looking for and the rot started.

This would be the IPSA who could not join the SSAI while we were a member and could once we left?
The ones were were banned from being in the same association with by the ISSF?
Or is there another IPSA I don't know about and to whom we weren't talking at the time?
Maybe it's one whose chairman I wasn't personally talking to back then?

Similarly the NASRPC and the NRAI wanted out

You do know who the SSAI chair was, right?
And you did read that document about the SSAI funding I linked to in the third post, right?
How do you square those two with that assertion?

They should have fixed the accounting issues and got the approval of the DoAST before they put the knife in.

So, let's see.
There's an accounting issue, brought about by the NASRPC. It has to be resolved by FISA. FISA is currently run by the NASRPC who have been the guys in the hot seat for six years now.


But the problem was the NRAI?

Y'know what, I'm not sure you know what's going on here.

Wrong again Sparks. Not one body, several.

Sorry, no. I know how it was set up and why because it's a funny thing, people in the admin side of things used to talk, all the time, for hours, so we were all in sync back then. The reasons for winding up the SSAI and starting FISA, the reasons for the given changes in how things would be run, were all very well known at the time. And frankly, this conversation, this position you're taking?

It got predicted. By the last chair of the SSAI. Six years ago.

I may owe him a pint now. I bet nobody would have the neck to assume that people would forget that much that fast.

NicholasF wrote: »

There is no doubt that there needs to be a change in what is being done to bring different groups together. Beside the individual funding that is not being received, the club funding and infrastructure grants are being lost to other sports.

We have a great opportunity to pull together, mainly because of the calibre of the many shooters who doggedly continued their interest in sport when so much pushed against them. I think this is a good thread thats well said, we have been our own worse't enemies. I think shooting demands a collective responsibility.
Nicholas

While I agree with you in principal, it seems there are some fundamental structural issues that need to be resolved before people can 'pull together' and take up the mantle of collective responsibility.

Mainly - if there were accounting irregularities, they need to be addressed and closed off before progress can be made.

There seem to be people here (Sparks, Badaj0dz) who know well what is going on (albeit from different perspectives) so perhaps someone can answer:

What is needed to be done by SSAI/FISA/NASRPC/The Tooth Fairy to re-establish engagement with the Dept?

What is the structure needed (I remember the ISSF/IPSA thing) to engage?

Is there a will for this to happen or are people just too jaded?

badaj0z wrote: »

This was one of the medium findings and not a show stopper.

Yeah, I wouldn't be putting quite as much faith in that report as you seem to be. Did you ever read it? It had some unusual findings.


Mind you, I suppose that's reasonable given that PwC never actually spoke to anyone running any of the bodies it was writing the report on.

. Lack of Expense Receipt Evidence

Finding

While reviewing the expense procedure payment process, there is a lack evidence of receipts attached to the expense forms. Only two officers have the ability to submit expenses in SSAI.

Rating Medium

Implication

The lack of evidence of receipts attached to expenses increases the risk of inappropriate or incorrect transactions occurring.

Recommendation

Ensure that receipts are attached to expenses and expenses are appropriately reviewed and authorised before any payments are made and store all documentation for future reference.

Management Comment and Action Plan

Agree - This has been commenced. All expenses are reviewed and reciepts are required in all instances. The Committee will resolve these issues and ultimate responsibility will rest with the treasurer and the chairman of the SSAI.

Ah, you didn't read it then.

See the problem is, that section is not talking about the specific case that we've been talking about here, it's talking about the process that led to that case.

Again, since PwC never spoke to the people involved, it's not shocking that they didn't cover that in their report.

So you go into the DoAST, show them that, and they'll answer with something along the lines of "We're glad that you've bolted the barn door, but we really must insist that you also corral the horse and return it". Or "Nice, but where are the receipts we're waiting on?", to be less metaphorical.


Of course, you might have to explain the... inaccuracies in the application mentioned in the third post on the thread as well.
But I'm sure you can do that.

badaj0z wrote: »

The report is the report.As it was critical, why are you surprised that the subjects of that criticism were unhappy?

I'm not surprised in the slightest. I'd be unhappy too if PwC had done a report into a body I was running, without ever talking to me or anyone else on the board about how the body was run, and getting several basic things wrong in the report as a result.

I don't mean basic as in "stuff you'd know if you had spent years in the organisation", I mean "stuff like the name of the organisation".

All that matters is that it indicates what the DoAST will want to see changed before it does business with the target shooting community again.

Specifically, they want the receipts.
That's your starting point.
They may want to talk about the inaccuracies on the above-mentioned form as well, but they'll want the receipts first as those were the first item in the timeline of events.


And they have this odd habit of asking for a thing and then not getting distracted by ten-page screeds on how it's a different time now and how we all partied and how if you really think about it none of this is real, it's all shadows on Plato's cave wall. They're odd that way.

It's almost like it was their day job or something.

FISA only ever existed on the minutes of a meeting for an hour.

Nope, sorry, it doesn't work like that, not least because of the contact between the SSAI, DoAST and DoJ prior to the winding up and handover to FISA.

Not to mention that if you applied your idea of what makes a thing exist a bit more widely, you'd be saying the NASRPC doesn't exist because it's not in the CRO's records either (even though it shouldn't be there, as it's an unincorporated association).

You'd also have to say the SSAI never existed, because of how it was formed (at the behest of a current NASRPC board member, before you come up with the "that was another time" stuff).

In fact, you'd be left with very very few associations or clubs left existing at all. It'd be a metaphysical annihilation. They're usually a bad thing.

Why not get into a position to enable you to stand for chairman?

See above comments on genitals and running kitchen appliances.

Why do you keep denying the obvious and still trying the blame the NASRPC for everything?

Because stating the obvious is kindof a weakness of mine, and that has a nasty side effect of highlighting when people keep screwing up things for others.
Mind you, if they didn't keep on doing it, year in and year out, for literally decades...

Your last paragraph is the worst. Why do you have to deride the efforts of the volunteers who do their bit to move the sport forward.

Hang on a second...
rereads his post
...no, I definitely wrote that in english and not swahili. Strange you read it to mean the exact opposite of what the words said.

Perplexing, even.

badaj0z wrote: »

Relevance?

You asked.

Just to make sure we understand you here Sparks, what receipts , demanded from whom?

No. And nobody else is to post the relevant names here either.
Perhaps my excessively deliberate choosing of words escaped you, so let me be clear; this is a topic that needs slightly more consideration in its discussion than you're used to in order to avoid fun and games with the Defamation Act.
The relevant people know what receipts are required; open discussion of their contents I leave to people with more time to spend with their legal teams. They may submit and fight the relevant FOI requests and publish on their own websites the relevant details if they so wish; that is their prerogative.

But this isn't the forum to be posting the names of people who may or may not be here to defend themselves from people who are not required to divulge their identity.
I don't think such a forum exists, for good reasons.
Complaints about associations and other non-identifying groups, that's a whole other ball of wax.

Bluster/hot air

I'm sorry, it must be frustrating when people take you seriously and point out what it is that you're saying is rubbish because of the implications if it was true.

The thing is that the SSAI, FISA and NASRPC are in the same legal grouping of Unincorporated Associations. If you think the FISA doesn't exist because it's not registered with the CRO (the only place such a body could be registered) then the same is true of the others. And the vast majority of our clubs and other associations as well.

You also have become very verbose so you have adopted the usual political approach that it is better to bluster when you are losing an argument than stutter and look embarrassed.

Ah, you did notice me choosing my words carefully. You just didn't understand why. Well, no harm, lesson learnt and next time you'll know why.

I'd advise that the next time you also bite down for a moment and ask "Why is the person I'm talking to choosing their words so carefully? Should I be doing so? What did I miss?"
In the areas you're stomping around in like a bull in a china shop, that would be a Very. Useful. Skillset.

Gleeful, you'll find more entertainment down the pub.
But since you insist:

Mod Note: Please review the Shooting Forum Charter, specifically this part:

We do not allow people to 'get the boot in' or to use boards.ie ltd as an anonymous platform to unjustly defame others. We never have and we're not interested in starting now.

Hopefully that's nice and clear.